Subject: RE: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-review-and-namespace-01.txt>

From: "HIBBS, BARR (SBCSI)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:14:32 -0800

> We may be arguing about semantics however, our server is data driven and
> new
> options do not require any modification of the code for the new options to
> work. I would not consider a new option that can be data driven to be
> changing the protocol.  The only piece left is the client.  I would
> suspect
> clients would have to change to make use of the new option, however they
> probably can just "pick up" the new option data without having to change
> client DHCP code.
> 
> 
...true....  since I have only one customer, my perspective on changes to
the servers is a bit biased, but if I can either (1) use the existing
configuration elements to support a new option, or (2) extend the
functionality incrementally, I don't consider a new option to be in
violation of the principle.  Because of our client population size, there
have been several occasions where the server support for an option was
available months before any client could request it.

With apologies, this is sort of like the debate on pornography:  "I can't
define it, but I know it when I see it!"

--Barr